Talk:Mole
Day 7 There's a sentence in the Edward Vossler section about Chris Whitley and Roger Taylor's deaths that doesn't quite make sense and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Can someone figure it out and fix it? --[[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|(Talk)]] 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) : The sentence had factual error in it, as well as poor grammar. It stated that Vossler killed Roger, but according to the dialogue from Day 7, it was Gedge that did it. I went through and changed stuff, see if it looks better? 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC) :: Yeah, that's better. --[[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|(Talk)]] 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Charles Logan Should he be added to this list? IMO, he does not meet the definition of a mole.--CWY2190 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) : I was wondering this, too. I never considered him to be a mole, since he's the Commander in Chief, but according to the definition at the top of the page, it sounds like he would be. --Proudhug 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ::No way. Logan was working for his own agenda, even if Graham was pulling the strings. Everything he did was for his benefit. --Conspiracy Unit 05:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) : But if Graham was pulling the strings then Logan wasn't working for his own agenda. He was working for Graham's agenda, which was to benefit both of them. --Proudhug 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ::But I don't think he was betraying his government. His plan was for the nerve gas was to deploy it in the terrorists camp. It got worse when he tried to cover it up.--CWY2190 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) According to the definition at the top of the page, Logan is not a mole. Like Proudhug said, Logan was working with Graham for their mutual benefit, not for Graham in exchange for money or anything else. (That's also why I moved Gael out of the mole category, because his loyalty wasn't to the Salazars - he was working for CTU, just like he was supposed to be.) I think the Charles Logan section should be either moved (maybe a new heading?) or removed. Either way, the definition should be expanded and clarified. --StBacchus 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Suspects : During Day 1, Tony Almeida, George Mason and Ryan Chapelle were all, at one time or another, suspected to be the CTU moles by Jack Bauer. Really? Can anyone cite this? I know the writers intended for the audience to suspect these people, but were any of them specifically centered out by Jack (or anyone) as being suspects? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I'm pretty sure they weren't. Walsh planted the "Trust No One (Except Jamey)" seed, but I assumed Jack was just as suspicious of Tony, George and Ryan as he was of any of the random extras walking around. --Proudhug 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ::During the season finale/second last episode of Day 1, Nina says that besides her Chappelle, Almeida and mason had access to certain info that may have proved that they were moles. Bauer, unwilling or unable to believe that Nina was a traitor, jack told her to watch the three. (This is actually Conspiracy unit, but I'm at school). Walt Cummings Hey what about this guy? He was a mole and was part of the conspiracy, I think he should be included. Maybe another section should be added as like, Other noles, and CTU moles. Roger Stanton In the article he is stated as a mole but was he one? Maybe he should be added. Spenser I fixed a few things under Spenser's entry. The caption was incorrect (Spenser was working at CTU during Day 5, not Day 4) and I reworded the entry slightly. Hank was sent to CTU specifically to finish off Jack, not Tony. While Tony was a target of the Sentox Nerve Gas conspirators, Hank was sent in to kill Jack. If he wanted to kill Tony, he would have shot the poor guy while he was lying helpless in the hospital bed. Instead, he killed Dr. Paulson and impersonated him in order to lure Jack down to CTU medical. -- Azure Syaoran 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Hong Wai I think that Wai should be added to the list. Spenser. Mole? Spenser thought he was part of a internal affairs investigation for the government. He didn't know that he was allowing Walt Cummings to forward information to terrorists. Shouldn't he be put under "Suspected Moles"Snsean11 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC) : No because the point is he did give information up to Cummings. The suspected moles are people who actually weren't moles in the end. SignorSimon 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Tony during Day 3 Tony should probably be included for Day 3 as he was an unwilling mole for Stephen Saunders when Saunders held Michelle hostage. --T smitts 04:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Dana etc. - laced with a bomb? I took the thing that blew up in Cole's face to be some sort of "magnesium flare" (of the sort beloved by comic book writers). Same thing, I suppose. I don't know. What sort of thing could be trusted to create a small enough explosion to concuss just the person standing there but not damage the contents of the box overmuch?... Anything? I wonder... Eschiss1 (talk) 03:50, June 21, 2013 (UTC) :I guess you'd have to ask an explosives expert about that - either way, I don't think it would be relevant to this article--Acer4666 (talk) 14:24, June 21, 2013 (UTC) Peter Kingsley and Jonathan Wallace I think that Peter Kingsley and Jonathan Wallace should being listed here. Why, well first they are listed here as moles. User:Blue Rook added them as moles in the section of the category. --Station7 (talk) 10:36, October 10, 2014 (UTC) :I can understand labeling Wallace as a mole since he did do some serious information digging, set up the whole ex-soldier units (hiring them from then on as mercenaries), then killed off his entire squad so that he was the only one benefitting from all of this then tried to get away from Kingsley's betrayal. Pure mole villainy in play but for Kingsley, he was just another businessmen with hired guns and bodyguards who was just trying to profit. Did anyone say that he did some seizing of valuable information or pose as someone else to gain access to something he shouldn't had otherwise?--Gunman6 (talk) 18:21, October 10, 2014 (UTC) :: Yep, I agree with Station7 about Kingsley. I look at it like this: Roger Stanton, Kingsley, Sherry Palmer, Ron Samuels, etc. had a conspiracy going among themselves to undermine President Palmer / get a nuke near LA / capture the nuke / and profit from the ensuing political control. However, Stanton, Sherry, Samuels, etc. had no idea that Kingsley was a mole for Max and Trepkos (the oil consortium). Therefore, Kingsley was a huge mole inside the Coral Snake conspiracy, serving the oil consortium conspiracy. :: It is very easy to forget this because we, the viewers, envision Kingsley when the "oil consortium story arc" was in full swing, after the Coral Snake threat was exposed. We never saw him playing his role as the mole, but it certainly happened, as evidenced by his discussion with Sherry in the Los Angeles Coliseum. In fact there are very few details explaining what Kingsley's role was from the perspective of Stanton/Sherry/etc. except that he was an intermediary for Hewitt. 00:35, October 11, 2014 (UTC) :::It is true that he was using so many others to his advantage and easily scheming several other illegal acts that were never actually seen but which Trepkos and Co. were sorting out. Well stated, sir, and I'm sure even the writers of this show would be jealous for everyone else remembering that part of the season given how much material they have to come up with on a regular basis.--Gunman6 (talk) 05:45, October 11, 2014 (UTC) ::I think there is a distinction between a double cross and being a mole. On Wiki_24:Articles_for_deletion we decided that the criteria for being a mole was someone who was legitimately employed in an organisation but was secretly working against it; I don't think Kingsley fits that description, more just someone who double crossed his fellow villains much like Abu Fayed/gredenko, dubaku/juma, stanton and samuels/syed ali, etc--Acer4666 (talk) 12:21, October 12, 2014 (UTC) ::::I could go either way on this. He did double-cross, yes, but he also did spy on other groups he used to work for within his whole organization. If we can't concur on this stance, maybe we can simply note something about Kingsley in the background information and notes.--Gunman6 (talk) 17:14, October 12, 2014 (UTC) ::: Acer I hate this mole article (and also the Mole category) so I don't mind what action is taken either way. But I still assert that Kingsley was a mole, not simply a double-crosser, as I understand you are defining them. Gredenko double-crossed Fayed; neither man belonged to the other's organization. Their two independent groups were in league, in a partnership. Stanton and Samuels had the same relationship with Second Wave: neither man was a Muslim extremist, but they double-crossed the terrorist cell they were ostensibly supporting. However, Kingsley was quite clearly a co-conspirator of the Coral Snake conspiracy. They counted him as one of their own. It's a different situation from your examples. Sure he betrayed/double-crossed them, since neither Sherry nor Stanton nor anyone else knew he was beholden to an oil consortium all along. But they apparently viewed him as a business partner who could profit with the rest of them in their scheme to force their policies into America's political landscape. 03:53, October 13, 2014 (UTC) Conspiracy If we were to add Kelly from 24: Conspiracy, should it be within the Day 4 list, or on a separate heading? Thief12 (talk) 01:47, June 18, 2016 (UTC) :I think as it's an in universe page and the events described happened on day 4 it makes sense to put it in the day 4 section--Acer4666 (talk) 22:26, June 18, 2016 (UTC)